After Sellers Acknowledged ₹20.41 Lakh, Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Only Against Bungalow-Sale Representative With No Direct Criminal Role

The complainant agreed to purchase Bungalow No. 33 in the Sun Villa Bungalows scheme for ₹22,41,000.

He alleged that the principal accused received payments towards the price, including amounts paid through their representatives, the applicant Mayur Ghanshyam Rajgor and another person.

In a written undertaking dated 30 October 2014, one principal accused acknowledged receipt of ₹20,41,000 and agreed to execute a registered sale deed upon payment of the remaining ₹2,00,000.

The complainant alleged that the principal accused subsequently avoided executing the deed and had sold the bungalow to a third party.

He lodged an FIR under Sections 406, 468, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant sought to quash the FIR against him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of a court and secure the ends of justice.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, quashing may be appropriate, among other illustrative categories, where allegations taken at face value do not prima facie constitute an offence against the accused.

Under Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709, the court may consider whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish an offence and whether, in the circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would serve the interests of justice; a transaction that is predominantly civil may not amount to a criminal offence where its essential ingredients are absent.

The alleged offences were under IPC Sections 406, 468, 420 and 114.

The Court considered the applicant’s role separately from that of the principal accused.

It found that the FIR alleged that the applicant acted as a representative through whom some payments were made, while the principal accused received and acknowledged the sale consideration and were responsible for executing the sale deed.

The Court found no direct role or other overt act attributed to the applicant that disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences against him.

Applying the Bhajan Lal and Madhavrao principles, it concluded that continuing the prosecution against the applicant would be futile and that the allegations against him reflected, at most, a civil transaction.

The order did not quash the proceedings against the other accused.

The Court stated that its observations were confined to deciding the application and would not affect pending litigation concerning the subject matter.